Shrink Wrap Agreement Enforceability In India

The Indians reinforce the idea of Digital India. However, there are no clear decrees that identify with exchanges through mechanized correspondent organizations. Some statutes, such as The Indian Contract Act, 1872, Information Technology Act, 2000, Indian Copyright Act, 1957 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 work and follow the resolution of issues that identify with the agreement and approval of online agreements. The Information Technology Act, 2000 is the law that manages Internet-managed exchanges and clarifies the impressive method of accepting the offer and sets the standards for abandoning the offer and acceptance in an obscure or unsuccessful manner. Subsequently, another law is urgently proposed for the management of contracts that depend on electronic contracts. The court added that such an agreement would not be applicable until it met all the requirements of a valid contract. It had stated that the terms of a valid contract were met in cases where there is a violation of national law or where the contract is an unreasonable windfall. The court also found that there are cases where contractual terms are numerous and detailed, so that users often do not read them and do not affect the validity of such a contract, unless the conditions are unacceptable. In Browse Wrap agreements, the continued use of the website or the act of downloading the software is interpreted as consent. At this point, it should be noted that the courts that debated the validity of these agreements have mainly held that the validity of the Browse Wrap agreements, based on the fact that the consumer actually complied with the terms of sale before using the site or downloading the software constructively. However, courts in other countries, such as the United States, have considered the validity and applicability of click-wrap contracts.

The validity of the Click Wrap agreement was first considered in Hotmail Corporation v. Van Money Pie Inc., etc., when the Northern District of California court confirmed, in the famous Hotmail Corporation case, that “the terms of the licence bound the defendant when he clicked the “I agree” box, thereby indicating his consent to the undertaking. The United States and the EU have granted legal recognition to electronic treaties through legislation and directives. The jurisprudence of these courts has expressly accepted such electronic contracts. A pioneering case is ProCD Inc v. Zeidenberg (1996), in which the U.S. Court of Appeals recognized the enforceability of retractable packaging licenses. Some U.S.

courts have also recognized e-mail contracts that have accepted the validity of a typed signature. Although e-mail contracts have been accepted, Indian laws still do not contain explicit rules or rules for click wrap, shrink-Wrap or Browse Wrap agreements. The closest foreign judges have only convincing value and are not binding on Indian courts. The appeal division of the Superior Court of New Jersey also decided that the complainant reached a key and restrictive agreement using the alternative “I agree” and that she could be subject to the terms set out in the agreement.